Evolution Explains Everything - Doesn't It

Come on now, Keith. This is a cop-out and you know it. If evolutionary theory only examined how species changed over time, this web site wouldn't exist and there would be no problem. It's because Darwin and his followers concluded that all organisms grow out of a common organic molecule sludge pond and that all organisms are necessarily related as some evolutionary fact, that we have a discussion. You may want to reserve your confusion for less witting groups. Here, we will call you on your attempts at erecting smoke screens every time.

Darwin actually wrote;-"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."From this point there have been 2 different developments. The first is greater understanding of heredity, genetics etc which have confirmed most of Darwin's theory of natural selection, common descent etc.The second development has been much greater understanding of the particular sequence of events in the history of life on earth.

It is conceivable that the fossil record would have revealed some original creation events, with subsequent diversification of the initially created kinds via evolution. The problem for your case was that there was no evidence to support this scenario. Instead, the original creation event seems to have produced only very simple single cells which over billions of years evolved into the life we see around us.

Since Darwin, the discovery that all life depends on DNA and/or RNA, and uses essentially the same genetic code has strengthened the idea that all life on earth is derived from one original cell.At the same time, we have much better estimates of the age of the earth

It is the evidence for this evolutionary history which has led many scientists to think evolution has not been guided by any divinity and that the first cells may have originated by abiogenesis.Do not blame Darwin or scientists when the problem is the lack of evidence supporting your beliefs.

Since Darwin, the discovery that all life depends on DNA and/or RNA, and uses essentially the same genetic code has strengthened the idea that all life on earth is derived from one original cell.

It has weakened the case for evolution.Evolution,through change over time,could have produced an entirely different type of genetic blueprint.A common designer would not.

It is the evidence for this evolutionary history which has led many scientists to think evolution has not been guided by any divinity and that the first cells may have originated by abiogenesis.

Scientists who think without evidence are storytellers,despite the evidence that refutes their stories.

Do not blame Darwin or scientists when the problem is the lack of evidence supporting your beliefs.

As i said in response to the first quote,the evidence matches our predictions.Were still waiting for evidence that matches one of yours.Oh yaeh,you don't make predictions,just contradictory stories to explain everything.

From what I've read of Genesis creation predicts sudden appearance of large animals (birds, land dwellers, sea creatures etc). What we actually see is smaller, sea based creatures appearing before larger creatures appear. Although close, there is a better explanation.

It has weakened the case for evolution.Evolution,through change over time,could have produced an entirely different type of genetic blueprint.A common designer would not.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Different type of genetic blueprint"? There is a great deal of different genetic blueprints. I assume I've misunderstood.

Scientists who think without evidence are storytellers,despite the evidence that refutes their stories.

Good thing there's plenty of evidence backing up their stories then. Google is your friend

As i said in response to the first quote,the evidence matches our predictions.Were still waiting for evidence that matches one of yours.Oh yaeh,you don't make predictions,just contradictory stories to explain everything.Thanks.

As I've said previously there's another forum dedicated to evolutions predictions. You seemed to know of it so I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

And aren't contrary stories that explain everything evidence? Not a prediction I know, but certainly worthy of acknowledgement.

From what I've read of Genesis creation predicts sudden appearance of large animals (birds, land dwellers, sea creatures etc). What we actually see is smaller, sea based creatures appearing before larger creatures appear. Although close, there is a better explanation.

Sea creatures showing up at the bottom is logical since they live below sea level.I don't know why any scientist would predict an ancient human civilization 10,000 ft. below sea level,but i guess thats the best strawman they have.

Where is this better explanation?All we find when looking at any order or family is sudden appearance.

Where is all the trilobite ancestors?

Where is all the nautiloid ancestors?

How about dinosaurs,they all show up fully formed as creation predicts,but you have a better answer?Answers without evidence is'nt evidence of anything.

Good thing there's plenty of evidence backing up their stories then. Google is your friend.

Ah yes,vestigal organs that all have a function.Junk DNA that is'nt junk.I did'nt know that arguements from ignorance was considered evidence.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. "Different type of genetic blueprint"? There is a great deal of different genetic blueprints. I assume I've misunderstood.

Sorry about that.I meant that evolution,through small gradual change,should have done something besides the same DNA/RNA based organism.

I guess that's entirely possible, although I wouldn't have the foggiest as to what else animals might be made up from. It may be that with the elements we have on earth there was no other way for life to evolve. Perhaps on other planets we will find creatures made up from different types of DNA.

The real question though, is why would you expect a designer to use nothing other than DNA to create His creatures? Surely if you have access to everything in the universe you could create some creatures from something other than DNA (assuming it is even possible). In fact, why not create an animal from something not even found on earth! That would be great evidence for a designer.

Sea creatures showing up at the bottom is logical since they live below sea level.I don't know why any scientist would predict an ancient human civilization 10,000 ft. below sea level,but i guess thats the best strawman they have.

Lol, Atlantis!

Seriously though, it's not just that sea creatures appear at the bottom. It's because we find small microscopical animals first, then large sea dwellers, then we find animals that have started moving onto land etc etc.

Where is this better explanation?All we find when looking at any order or family is sudden appearance.

Where is all the trilobite ancestors?

Where is all the nautiloid ancestors?

How about dinosaurs,they all show up fully formed as creation predicts,but you have a better answer?Answers without evidence isn't evidence of anything.

I'm not even going to pretend I know all about trilobite, nautiloid or dinosaur evolution. Nor am I going to pretend that evolution has explained every single creatures evolutionary path.

What I did find with a very quick search was that the earliest dinosaurs discovered are small, with larger dinosaurs coming into the picture later. Just as evolution would predict. I'm afraid if you want more you'll have to get in touch with someone who has a deeper understanding that I, or start doing the research for yourself.

My recollection of the myth is that all life was formed in 6 days (essentially simultaneously) about 6,000 years ago. Other than Noah's flood there is no extinctions. If evolution occurred, it was limited to microevolution within kinds, perhaps separating sheep from goats.As Arch has made clear, the actual fossil record is not consistent with Genesis. Even more important, the geologists who discovered that were expecting to find confirmation of scripture.

About the fact that all life is based on RNA or RNA and DNA

It has weakened the case for evolution.Evolution,through change over time,could have produced an entirely different type of genetic blueprint.A common designer would not.

Again, you show your misunderstanding of evolution.If abiogenesis were easy, then it is possible that 2 or more independent living forms could have appeared almost simultaneously, with different genetic codes, and probably based on molecules other than DNA. This becomes more improbable as abiogenesis becomes more difficult. Even if there were initially more than one different life form, competition would probably leave only one survivor.It is the other possibility, creation by some divine intelligence, in which there is no constraint on the variety of designs which could be created. A good designer does not simply xerox his first design and make minimal changes. He is free to be creative.

Scientists who think without evidence are storytellers,despite the evidence that refutes their stories.As i said in response to the first quote,the evidence matches our predictions.Were still waiting for evidence that matches one of yours.

Hey Adam, I haven't been to that forum for a while because I was under the impression you wanted every animals lineage, which I thought was impossible for a small group to do. If you're happy with me trying to nut out a single animals evolutionary history I might just have a go at it.

What I did find with a very quick search was that the earliest dinosaurs discovered are small, with larger dinosaurs coming into the picture later. Just as evolution would predict. I'm afraid if you want more you'll have to get in touch with someone who has a deeper understanding that I, or start doing the research for yourself.

Arch,

Are saying that small to large is evidence of evolution,without any evidence of evolution?

Stephen Gould, Harvard, "According to a Ã¢â‚¬ËœlawÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But CopeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet." Nature, V.385, 1/16/97

Why is Copes' law falsified?

Von Engeln & Caster, "Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times.", Geology, p.19 "Giants Of The Past," "Leakey...had been scouring the gorge since 1931. Over the years he has unearthed the bones of an ancient pig as big as a rhino, a six-foot-tall sheep, a twelve-foot-tall bird and the flattopped skull of the erect 'Nutcracker man'.", Time Magazine, 3/10/1961 Larger Boy, Richard Leakey "Ã¢â‚¬Â¦the boy from Turkana was surprisingly large compared with modern boys his age; Ã¢â‚¬Â¦he would probably go unnoticed in a crowd today. This find combines with previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict a long held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia." National Geographic, 11/19/85 p.629 p.158 "Ã¢â‚¬Â¦fossil bones from a 4 m tall, 500 kg [12', 1100 lb] bird that once roamed the Australian Outback (along with giant kangaroos and wombats the size of cars), were discovered near Central Australia's Alice Springs." Peter Murray, Mu. of Central Australia, Quoted in Daily Telegraph, 8/17/2002, p.7 "Stone Age Elepant" "Ã¢â‚¬Â¦would have been twice the size of the largest modern African elephant. Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Bones from other large animals, including rhinoceros, buffalo and wild horses, have also been found nearby." BBC News, 6/19/04 "Ratzilla" Science News, 9/20/03 "Dig reveals real mighty mouse 8 million years ago, buffalo-size rodents roamed Venezuela" Science, 9/19, 2003 "Killer Kangaroos Once Roamed Australia" "University of New South Wales, Dr Sue Hand, told the Daily Mail had slicing crests on their teeth that, Ã¢â‚¬Ëœcould have crunched through bone and sliced off flesh.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢" Science News8/8,2006 Demon Duck of Doom, Bullockornis...stood approximately 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) tall. It may have weighed up to 250 kg (550 lb). ...a very large beak designed for shearing,...the bird may have been carnivorous." Wikipedia The Fossil Cycads, Robert Buckley, 1999"Ã¢â‚¬Â¦the true cycads were apparently quite large. One fossil from Japan, a large stem over four feet in diameter...." p.13 A giant frog fossil from Madagascar dubbed Beelzebufo or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthe frog from Hell' has been identified by scientists from UCL (University College London) and Stony Brook University, New York. The discovery of the 70 million year-old fossil frog" 2/18/08, Physorg.com All Insects Larger, "In general all the Pennsylvanian insects were larger than the ones we know today." Trilobite, Dinosaur And Man, Clifford Simak, p.158 "Why Were Prehistoric Insects Huge?" "Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern UniversityÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Department of Physiology, Division of Basic Sciences, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history." Science Daily, 8/8/07

Are saying that small to large is evidence of evolution,without any evidence of evolution?

No, I'm saying I don't have the evidence, nor do I have the time to find it. Feel free to look into it.

What I was saying is that at the initial stages of evolution we expect small microscopic animals to slowly grow larger over time. There would be a certain size an animal could get to before growing bigger would become a disadvantage (greater strength vs need for additional food). When we look at the fossil record this is what we find.

What I was saying is that at the initial stages of evolution we expect small microscopic animals to slowly grow larger over time. There would be a certain size an animal could get to before growing bigger would become a disadvantage (greater strength vs need for additional food). When we look at the fossil record this is what we find.

I agree, that's what one would expect if evolution were a fact. But if we view the reality of the fossils themselves, it appears to be quite the opposite. Contrary to simplicity giving rise to complexity, it seems we find an abrupt appearance of fully formed life of all kinds and surprising statis in the fossils as far as their modern day counterparts. As for being smaller? Well, it seems they can often be found to be LARGER!

The fossil liquidambar leaf (top) is allegedly about 20 million years old on the evolutionistsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ time-scale. This specimen is from Ã¢â‚¬ËœMioceneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ brown coal in north-western Germany. Yet the leaves are almost identical to the living variety (under), showing no evolution.

Insects. Of the 12,000 fossilised insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today, e.g. ants, cockroaches, cicadas and dragon fliesÃ‚Â (The World Of Living Fossils, Mackay). Whether bees or ants, cicadas or beetles, termites or cockroaches, the fossils of these and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods.

There is a limit to how many images allowed in each post, so I've just given a wee example. But you may find these links of particular interest and much more variety and information:

LIVING FOSSILS (I highly recommend this. A beautiful, clear and informative presentation with pictures and commentary).

The discovery of a giant fossilized claw from an ancient sea scorpion indicates that when alive it would have been about 2.5 meters long, much taller than the average man.

This find, from rocks 390 million years old, suggests that spiders, insects, crabs and similar creatures were much larger in the past than previously thought.

Dr Simon Braddy from the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol, co-author of an article about the find, said, Ã¢â‚¬ËœThis is an amazing discovery. We have known for some time that the fossil record yields monster millipedes, super-sized scorpions, colossal cockroaches, and jumbo dragonflies, but we never realised, until now, just how big some of these ancient creepy-crawlies were.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

The research is published online today in the Royal SocietyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s journal Biology Letters. The claw was discovered by one of Dr BraddyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s co-authors, Markus Poschmann, in a quarry near PrÃƒÂ¼m in Germany.

Poschmann described finding the fossil: "I was loosening pieces of rock with a hammer and chisel when I suddenly realised there was a dark patch of organic matter on a freshly removed slab. After some cleaning I could identify this as a small part of a large claw. Although I did not know if it was more complete or not, I decided to try and get it out. The pieces had to be cleaned separately, dried, and then glued back together. It was then put into a white plaster jacket to stabilise it."

The claw is from a sea scorpion (eurypterid) Jaekelopterus rhenaniae that lived between 460 and 255 million years ago. It is 46 centimetres long, indicating that the sea scorpion to which it belonged was around 2.5 metres (8 feet) long Ã¢â‚¬â€œ almost half a metre longer than previous estimates......Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

Small sea life: (5) Giant trilobites up to 18 [45.72 cm] inches long, with none alive today, and the creatures now living and most similar to them are quite small. (6) Fifteen-foot [457 cm] long straight-shelled cephalopods (Endoceras proteiforme), and 9-foot [274 cm] sea-scorpions (Euryprids) once lived. Nothing of such immense sizes is found among them today. Those fossil Euryprids were the largest arthropods that ever lived. (7) Exquisitely shaped fossil crinoids have been found, while none are now living.

Insects: (8) Some insects were 4 to 8 inches [10.1620.32 cm] in length. Dragonflies had a wing spread of 29 inches [73.66 cm], and some centipedes were 12 inches [30.48] in length.

Amphibians: (9) TodayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s amphibians are small salamanders or frogs. But in the past, there were the giants of Stegocephalia, of which Onychopus gigas alone weighed 500 pounds [226.8 kg].

Larger marine life: (10) How would you like to meet a shark with jaws 6 feet [183 cm] across? That is what sharks were like in ancient times. (11) Basilosaurus was a marine mammal with a 4-foot [12 dm] head, 10-foot [30 dm] long body, and 40-foot (122 m] tail.

Birds: (12) Diatryma looked somewhat like an ostrich, but was 7 feet [21 dm] tall and had a head as big as a horse. (13) The Phororhacos was nearly 8 feet [24 dm] tall with a skull 23 inches [58.42 cm] across. (14) Dinornis was 10-feet [30.5 dm] tall, and was the largest bird that ever lived.

Larger mammals: (15) The Mongolian Andresarchus had a skull 21/x feet [76 dm] long, and was one of the largest carnivores ever to live. (16) Imagine meeting a long-homed rhinoceros 14 feet [43 m] tall? Another rhinoceros, Baluchiterium, was 13 feet [40 dm] high and 25 feet [76 dm] long.

Reptiles: (20) Crocodile-like phytosaurs were 25 feet [76 dm] long, and dolphin-like ichthyosaurs were 30 feet [91 dm] in length. (21) There were 35-foot [171 dm] long marine reptiles (Mosasaurs), and 11-foot [34 dm] marine turtles (Archelon). (22) The Pteranodon had a 25-foot [76 dm] wing spread. (23) And then there were gigantic land reptiles, including the 45-foot [137 dm] Tyrannosaurus rex, the 65-foot [189 dm] long Brontosaurus, the 10-ton j9 mijStegosaurus, and the 80-foot [244 dm] long Diplodocus.

Only within the past couple decades have the fossils of the largest land creature and the largest flying creature been found. In the summer of 1972, James A. Jensen, a Utah scientist, discovered the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s largest dinosaur in western ColoradoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Uncompahgre National Forest, near the town of Delta.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Although it has a superficial resemblance to the huge herbivorous Brachiosaurus, Jensen feels that it is different enough to be an entirely new species. Estimates are that the dinosaur was 50 feet [152 dm] tall, 100 feet [305 dm] in length, and weighed 80 [72.5 mt] tons. That would make it approximately three times as large as the largest dinosaur now known, and place it in the range of size of the blue whalecalled the largest creature on earth. A land creature the size of the blue whale staggers the imagination.Ã¢â‚¬Â Marvin L Lubenow, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Significant Discoveries Since 1958,Ã¢â‚¬Â in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1980, p. 158. [Also see Time, August 21, 1972.]

In 1971, three specimens of the largest bird were found in Texas.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“The largest known flying creature ever to inhabit the earth describes a series of fossil discoveries made by Douglas Lawson beginning in 1971. In a remote section of Big Bend National Park in southwest Texas, Lawson has unearthed the fossil remains of three pterosaursone of them having an estimated wingspan of 51 feet [155 dm], twice as large as any flying reptile previously discovered. By way of contrast, the bird with the largest wingspan, the wandering albatross, measures 11 feet [33.5 dm], and the McDonell Douglas F-1 5A jet fighter has a wingspan of 43 feet [131 dm].Ã¢â‚¬Â Ibid.

I agree, that's what one would expect if evolution were a fact.Ã‚Â But if we view the reality of the fossils themselves, it appears to be quite the opposite.Ã‚Â Contrary to simplicity giving rise to complexity, it seems we find an abrupt appearance of fully formed life of all kinds and surprising statis in the fossils as far as their modern day counterparts.Ã‚Â As for being smaller? Well, it seems they can often be found to be LARGER!Ã‚Â

Thanks for the reference material Bex. This easily counters the evolutionist prayers for evidence of micro to macro evolution, and some of their pretended neutral (I'm not really sure, or I don't have enough evidence) stances. And thanks again for doing the leg work some are unwilling to do.

There are many theories as to why the animals were larger, but the fact is this: The were larger.

It not only shows that the evolutionists predictions are wrong about Copes' Law,but also,the earth must of had much more oxygen in the past than it does now.Experiments have shown insects only grow to the size they are today because of the ratios of oxygen in our atmosphere.

So it also falsifies the assumption that oxygen has been increasing throughout geologic time.

I agree, that's what one would expect if evolution were a fact. But if we view the reality of the fossils themselves, it appears to be quite the opposite. Contrary to simplicity giving rise to complexity, it seems we find an abrupt appearance of fully formed life of all kinds and surprising statis in the fossils as far as their modern day counterparts. As for being smaller? Well, it seems they can often be found to be larger

Great resources Bex, but you're not going back nearly far enough. You've started your research at a point were animals are already well developed. Try going back before then...say just before animals climbed out of the water for example.

I'd also like to say how much I love creationists using fossils that are 255million years old as evidence for creation 6000 years ago . Either they are that old and they debunk creation strongly, or they're not that old in which case how do you know you've got them listed in the right order?

Great resources Bex, but you're not going back nearly far enough. You've started your research at a point were animals are already well developed. Try going back before then...say just before animals climbed out of the water for example.

I'd also like to say how much I love creationists using fossils that are 255million years old as evidence for creation 6000 years ago . Either they are that old and they debunk creation strongly, or they're not that old in which case how do you know you've got them listed in the right order?

Regards,

Arch.

You're welcome Arch.

Some creationists believe in a very old earth, some do not. The point is, the fossils that are found appear to display full formation/complexity and little change. Whether extinct or not, there seems to be an abrupt appearance of fully formed life forms that does not appear to show a process from simple life to complex.....however, you maybe able to display the evidence to the contrary and I've not seen this.

These fossils are dated according to the old age dating beliefs/methods. So even if this method of dating is indeed accurate? It shows that time and enormous amounts of it has not helped prove the evolution scenario! So how far back should we keep going before we get to see the process you've spoken of?

Where is this fossil record displaying the process from simple life taking form into complex/fully formed life? I'd be interested to view it.